35% flat tax. for or against?

Answer 1

Definitely against.

If you have two hypothetical households, one of whom makes $10,000 per year, the other earning $100,000 per year and they are both charged the same flat tax on that income, it would seem fair on the surface. Consider though:

Family A now only has $6500 to feed, shelter, and clothe themselves, not to mention that poor nutrition as well as the propensity for the lower socio-economic classes to suffer from poor nutrition (increased health care costs), drive older, less maintained cars (increased transportaion costs) and turn to drugs, cigarettes, or alcohol as a coping mechanism (further incresed healthcare costs, not to mention the purchase price), the lower income family by far gets the short end on this one.

Meanwhile, Family B would actually be getting a tax break at 35%, allowing them to adequately feed, clothe, shelter, and educate themseslves, as well as having even more disposable income for luxury items, or possibly investments, thereby widening the gap between the socio-economic demographics.

Answer 2

The way the Republicans want to do it, it is really just another way to give tax breaks to the rich while the poor and middle class suffer. If the purpose was to simplify taxes, it can be done fairly.

I would be able to support a flat tax if this replaced all other taxes, was applied equally to all forms of income (including capital gains), and there were only very limited exclusions or deductions.

To make a flat tax fair, we would need to exclude an allowance that would enable people to live before they start being taxed. It isn't fair to tax people who can't afford to live, which happens with the 7.65% social security/medicare tax, which would be folded into the income tax system if I had my way. I would increase the standard deduction to $25,000 per person ($50,000 for married couples), plus $5,000 per child, indexed to inflation. To discourage overpopulation, I would limit the child exclusion to 1 child per person (or 2 children per married couple). Additionally, poor and lower income people would be discouraged from having children altogether since they would pay no tax and therefore not benefit from the additional deduction for children. I would also phase out the standard deductions after reaching certain income levels, perhaps around $250,000 per person.

I don't know if 35% is a good number, it depends on how much revenue is raised after the increased standard deductions and elimination of all other taxes.

Answer 3

TOTALY against! Why the hell should I pay double what I'm paying right now?? That would be totally INSANE. (Though it would fix the budget, at least in theory.) A flat tax that high would clean everyone's clocks.

FYI, 35% is the highest tax bracket today. The poor would be tossed into the streets if they had to pay that much of their minimal income; most of them pay no tax at all and many are subsidized by the EIC. The middle class would become the new poor. It would hurt the wealthy somewhat though their resources would make survival possible.

Answer 4

35%? That's stupid! We've got a 10% flat tax here in Alberta, and it's reasonably fair - as long as you aren't poor!

Answer 5

Against.

Unless you want to increase current taxes on the poor or 'economically disadvantaged'.

Answer 6

Only if they would reduce the excise taxes. If you figure how much we pay on income tax, gas tax, sales tax, Alcohol tax, cig tax, property tax, death tax, ............. It usually more like 40% now depending on consumption.